Pat Robertson calls for the covert assasination of Venezuelan President. Link Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Well, it's certainly a good thing, then, that the religious nuts and televangelists have no sway over the current administration.
Oh wait...
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
Yowza!
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
is this person insane? AND WTF!? "accusations are ridiculas" WTF OMFG EVER HEAR ABOUT GUATAMALA?????!!!!! And wait Bay of... Ham....
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
He also said Clinton shouldn't be impeached. There seems to be no end to it! Seriously, it is a good thing he has no sway over the Bush admin.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Oh he's just mouthing off idiotic comments again. Honestly, who pays attention besides the media?
I don't know a single person who holds him in high esteem, and I run in almost exclusively conservative Christian circles, in the Bible belt no less.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Well, one of my best friends is from Venezuela, and his grandmother is like I think a governor over there too.
And I think to many people like him- I know he'd welcome it. The stuff going on in Venezuela- he's a pretty big reason why gas prices have gone up in my opinion. Oil is Venezuela's biggest export- and they either have or ship out more than they do in the Middle East I know (maybe both)
This guy really is communist- do we really want another communist dictator on our hands? He has also tried multiple times to try and get his powers extended. They have voted several times to get him out, but he always stays in- which my friend says is just because of election rigging. He has also many times not allowed elections to try and kick him out- isn't that one of the basis of a free society- the freedom to remove your leaders in a lawful way. It has resulted in riots, and a giant strike of the entire oil industry for 2-6 months a few years ago.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
Don't even the majority of Christians despise Pat Robertson at this point? The only thing I haven't figured out is why he's still on TV... not GOOD TV, mind you, but the ghetto of Religious TV, which is about on par with Public Access TV except less informative.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
what about guatamala? The communist pres there was democratically elected in and the CIA booted him out after that a succession of brutal fascist dictators took control and pretty much everyone who could form a government was communist and left.
When does it end? Kick one out and not the other? How do you decide? Should you be the one to decide?
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I don't think assassinating a leader who hasn't even shown himself to be a menace to world peace would qualify as a just war under Christian standards. (end understatement)
Seriously, every Christian leader should stand up and say, "This is not my Christianity!", just as we want Muslim leaders to say that terrorism is not their Islam.
Oh dear, now every opinion associated with Christians is going to be tainted by association, to the dismay of pro-life unbelivers like myself everywhere.
Posted by Crotalus (Member # 7339) on :
I am not a Christian leader, but I am a Christian and I will say it: This is not my Christianity! Pat just needs to shut up.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Robertson wanted to nuke the US State Dept? I missed that one.
The creepy thing about Pat is the way he can say the most hateful, hurtful stuff while still keeping that weird crooked smile.
[ August 23, 2005, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
The US government has a long standing dislike of Chavez, but I doubt they'll actually do anything about it. Chavez is much too popular in Venezuela for the US to do anything because there will be too much backlash from around the world. A few years ago, there was a coup attempt and the US was lambasted in international press for weeks for not immediately denouncing the coup. The government doesn't want to deal with things like that again. Additionally, one can hope that they've learned a little bit from experiences in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc.
Of course, this is Pat Robertson we're talking about...
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
*joins in with Crotalus*
This is not my Christianity! Pat just needs to shut up!
I'd buy a tshirt with this on it.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sid Meier: what about guatamala? The communist pres there was democratically elected in and the CIA booted him out after that a succession of brutal fascist dictators took control and pretty much everyone who could form a government was communist and left.
When does it end? Kick one out and not the other? How do you decide? Should you be the one to decide?
Actually, the president was socialist and was taking land-reform measures which included nationalizing the United Fruit Corporation, a company in which one of the Dulles brothers had a vary large interest. So the US, to protect one of its preeminent citizens (under the guise of protecting our backyard from communism), facilitated a coup which led to 36 years of civil war and human rights abuses. It wasn't so much a matter of opposition members leaving the party, but rather opposition members being killed or 'disappeared.' Nearly 10 years after the war officially ended, Guatemala still has numerous social issues that were created and exacerbated by the war.
And as much as I loathe the history of US intervention in Latin America, US policy hasn't been too bad in the past few years with a few exceptions (such as some members of the US government backing Ríos Montt, the former Guatemalan dictator who was responsible for the worst of the human rights abuses during the war, as president in the last election).
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Apparently, Pat is all for dictators when he has investments in their country.
quote: May I respectfully inquire as a taxpayer of the United States and one with significant financial investment in Liberia why the State Department of the United States of America is determined to bring down the President of Liberia ...blah blah blah
Didn't he also once say that 9/11 was punishment from God because America tolerates homosexuality?
Or am I getting my fruitcakes mixed up?
Pix
Posted by Sarcasm (Member # 4653) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Pat Robertson calls for the covert assasination of Venezuelan President. Link
Well, it won't be covert now, will it? Good going, Pat. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Hooray for nuts and fruitcakes! They give us something to talk about.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Pix, it was Jerry Falwell in a broadcast conversation with Pat Robertson. In that conversation Pat Robertson replied "I agree completely" or something to that effect. So, no, he didn't originate that lovely bit of spiritual insight, he was just a suck-up.
[ August 23, 2005, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Those two kinda bleed together in my mind like a two headed bile spewing hate machine. I'm always getting them confused.
Thanks Karl =)
Pix
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I made a boo-boo when I assumed that, because Pat Robertson was against the Iraq war, that he was against all such international intervention. Seriously, why is he against the Iraq war, but pro-assassination? Is it just because Iraq is on the other side of the Atlantic? Actually, I could understand that a little.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
Steven...if you read his comments, you see he doesn't want a war, he wants an assassination to avoid an expensive war like we have in Iraq.
Of course what he doesn't realize is that assassinations like that would not lead to something better. If anything it would just inflame the situation, leading to another dictator who is even more pissed off.
But no one has ever accused Pat Robertson of being rational.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
I don't know much about Pat Robertson, but when you get through all the prefabricated rage-on-command of the anti-religious left (admirably displayed in this thread,) his suggestion makes sense, if it does seem rather shocking on first glance.
Chavez is a total nutcase, and if he isn't a direct threat yet, it's not through lack of trying. A war costs billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of lives. A bullet costs a few cents and only one life. Think about it.
Of course, it may be better to look at other ways of overthrowing him without killing him and keep assassination as a last resort.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
An assassination? That just opens the door for the American President to get assassinated, does it not? The Secret Service can only do so much.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, because eliminating a total nutcase who's had years and years to create a hierarchy of loyalists is sure to be a safe move. I mean, either one of his henchmen takes over, or they start a war squabbling over the position (which quite possibly spills over). Pat Robertson's an idiot.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Sign me up for the t-shirt too....Pat's Christianity is not my Christianity.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
*rolls eyes profusely*
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Pat Robertson and Osama bin Laden ... both men on a mission for what they think is God.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
What would the basic doctrinal differences be between Pat Robertson and Osama?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Whether Jesus is God and whether Mohammed is a prophet, for starters. Also -- let's be serious. If bin Laden restricted himself to saying things like Robertson rather than blowing up buildings with people in them, the world would be a very different place.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
will--I thought Muslims agreed with Christians on some points.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I'm not sure what bin Laden's Moslem credentials are. I never heard about his enthusiasm for witnessing that Allah is One, but have heard a lot about his interest in blowing up the people of the book (Christians and Jews), which his religion says should be tolerated.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: but when you get through all the prefabricated rage-on-command of the anti-religious left (admirably displayed in this thread,)
What thread are you reading? Not this one. I've seen little, if any, rage displayed at all, and no one has been anti-religious in the least. You ought to see someone about that jerking knee.
quote:his suggestion makes sense, if it does seem rather shocking on first glance.
Chavez is a total nutcase, and if he isn't a direct threat yet, it's not through lack of trying. A war costs billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of lives. A bullet costs a few cents and only one life. Think about it.
Can you explain how this makes Pat Robertson any different from his Muslim counterpart who may believe it is in the best interest of his country (if not the Middle East as a whole) to take out a few select American politicians? International vigilantism isn't any better than the same on a local scale.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, you see some way in which my point isn't sound, dh?
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: Well, one of my best friends is from Venezuela, and his grandmother is like I think a governor over there too.
And I think to many people like him- I know he'd welcome it. The stuff going on in Venezuela- he's a pretty big reason why gas prices have gone up in my opinion. Oil is Venezuela's biggest export- and they either have or ship out more than they do in the Middle East I know (maybe both)
This guy really is communist- do we really want another communist dictator on our hands? He has also tried multiple times to try and get his powers extended. They have voted several times to get him out, but he always stays in- which my friend says is just because of election rigging. He has also many times not allowed elections to try and kick him out- isn't that one of the basis of a free society- the freedom to remove your leaders in a lawful way. It has resulted in riots, and a giant strike of the entire oil industry for 2-6 months a few years ago.
Ding Ding Ding! We've got a winner!
Being from Venezuela, I can certainly tell you that all the things your friend told you are true. Maybe one of these days I'll pull up some pictures or video of the marches that were being held in Caracas by people who were protesting against Chavez's abuse, it was certainly impressive.
As for Pat Robertson, as opposed to Chavez as I am, the man is insane. I think Venezuela would be much better off with Chavez out of the way but I think calling out for his assasination on the media is foolish. Not only is he making Chavez's opposition look like fools for having some lunatic support them like that, but he's also fueling Chavez's ridiculous claims of Bush's plot to assasinate him.
I believe this graemlin can accurately express how I feel right now: Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
To chime in on a couple of different things-
Don't get me started on Guatemala. I lived there for a couple of years in the early 90's. The past with Rios Mont type military dictatorships, etc. is very...well don't get me started.
For the US it boiled down to. Evil Communist Rebels or Evil Military Dictatorship and the US threw in with the Dictatorship. It felt alot like Iran/Iraq war. Very Similar. At least things have cooled down for the most part.
Venezuela, My brother lived there for a couple of years from 2000 to 2002 I believe. Also a co-worker lived there from 1994 to 1996. The people don't like Chavez, but there's not much they can do about it. Also they don't like Columbians either as there is alot of illegal immigration from Columbia to Venezuela and alot of drug trafficking THROUGH Venezuela.
So what does the US do with Venezuela? Do we even care? Should we care enough to do anything? Assassination is the stupidest idea I've heard and so is fueling the opposition. I think sweet influence is probably the best route.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I still think I'm in the running for best American Christian Speaker.
Come on, if George W. Bush, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Fallwell are in the lead, maybe it's time for me to start walking up the mountain.
(although Joel Osteen is probably #1 right now, I'd be willing to go Sermon to Sermon with him)
God Bless Everyone
<T>
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:I don't know much about Pat Robertson, but when you get through all the prefabricated rage-on-command of the anti-religious left (admirably displayed in this thread,) his suggestion makes sense, if it does seem rather shocking on first glance.
Chavez is a total nutcase, and if he isn't a direct threat yet, it's not through lack of trying. A war costs billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of lives. A bullet costs a few cents and only one life. Think about it.
Yeah, assassination is a great thing.
Let's screw up Latin America some more!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
if the people democratically elect someone however socialist/communist the USA should not have the right to oust him/her. Else other gov's can try to oust them!
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:I still think I'm in the running for best American Christian Speaker.
Well, you do win this one by comparison I suppose. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hmmmmfffffffffffff.
I strongly object to my rage being called "prefabricated." I'll have you know that I bake my rage from only the finest ingredients using a family recipe honed by generations. It has to be made from scratch and left to simmer for days, if not weeks, months and years.
In fact, I have yet to truly rage.
Although, if you look at Pat Robertson (and Jerry Falwell) closely enough and don't fly into a rage eventually, I think there is something seriously wrong with your oven and you should have the thermostat checked.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I run in almost exclusively conservative Christian circles
Don't you get dizzy?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, while I was upstairs flipping through channels, I came upon the 700 Club tv show. Not something I normally watch, but I was curious as to what Robertson might say in his own defense or how he might clarify his remarks, so I watched the beginning of it.
Now, keep in mind I'm not a Robertson fan - he actually wouldn't like me very much, I don't think, we disagree on theology as well as other things. But, I will give credit where it is due. He claims he never called for assassination and that he was misinterpreted. Which one would expect him to say, and that's no surprise. But what was a surprise is that he was interviewing someone from a Human Rights organization about Venezuela and that person spoke about how he disagreed with what Pat said, and how he didn't condone assassination and Robertson let him talk, and didn't argue, simply said he appreciated the man stating his views.
So, I give him credit for at least trying to defend the statements and trying to distance himself from actually calling for the killing of another person, and for allowing dissent to be aired on his own tv show without interrupting or trying to silence the dissenter.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:He claims he never called for assassination and that he was misinterpreted. . . . So, I give him credit for at least trying to defend the statements and trying to distance himself from actually calling for the killing of another person, and for allowing dissent to be aired on his own tv show without interrupting or trying to silence the dissenter.
Well, I'll give him credit myself for allowing the dissent without interruption. What credit should he be given for "trying to defend" the statements by saying he didn't say them? He and Falwell used the "misinterpreted" line when challenged on their "gays caused 911" fiasco, too. I'd give him more credit if he said, "Hey folks, I let my mouth get away from my brain again. Sorry." For someone who claims to be a spiritual leader, I expect better than mealymouthed equivocation.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:He and Falwell used the "misinterpreted" line when challenged on their "gays caused 911" fiasco, too. I'd give him more credit if he said, "Hey folks, I let my mouth get away from my brain again. Sorry." For someone who claims to be a spiritual leader, I expect better than mealymouthed equivocation.
People mispeak all the time.
I seem to remember Slick Willey actually saying that he was offered bin Laden from Sudan after the first World Trade Center bombings and Africa Embassy attacks, and he turned him away cause he "had no reason to hold him".
He either misspoke or really did something horrible that indirectly led to thousands of deaths.
I actually like Bill Clinton. He's pretty moderate and has been as president and since. They've interviewed him on David Letterman, etc. on the war, President Bush, etc. and he doesn't spit any vile or venom that some in his party do.
Oh and Robertson and Fallwell (sp?) are about as far from representing my beliefs and Gloria Steinem and Barbara Boxer are.
Way to extreme to be taken seriously.
I can't wait for the SNL skit that makes fun of this? This Saturday too soon to expect it?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: I can't wait for the SNL skit that makes fun of this? This Saturday too soon to expect it?
Rev. Jesse Jackson is doing a nice job of stepping up the heat on this one (I mean that sincerely). He's quoted in this article from Diversity, Inc. (their daily newsletter published an article about my own organization a couple weeks ago by the same reporter):
quote:The Rev. Jesse Jackson, founder and president of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, called for an investigation by the Federal Communications Commission, which fined CBS affiliates $550,000 for airing Janet Jackson's Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction.
"This is even more threatening to hemispheric stability than the flash of a breast on television during a ballgame," Rev. Jackson (registration required) told The New York Times.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:People mispeak all the time.
One "misspeaks" when one says "I'd like a coke" when they really mean "I'd like a diet coke." Or when one says "I live 40 miles from Baltimore" when they really live 55 miles from Baltimore but never measured it precisely.
One does not "misspeak" when one expresses one's opinion and then is embarrassed because they are called on it. I think it is sadly naive to dismiss this case with "People misspeak all the time." Yes, they do, but Robertson knew what he was saying, said it clearly, and repeated the sentiment in different terms. He did not "misspeak". He spoke what he wanted to speak and people are calling him on it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Terrorist violence Cannot foment, justify, glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs
Terrorist acts Cannot seek to provoke others to terrorist acts
Criminal acts Cannot foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts
Inter-community violence Cannot foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.
Method Individuals who do the above by any means or medium are caught by the legislation, including: - writing, producing, publishing or distributing material; - public speaking including preaching - running a website - using a position of responsibility such as teacher, community or youth leader
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I'm not giving him a pass on this. I just don't think I have the right to tell him what he believes or meant to say as only he knows (if he even knows himself, which is questionable).
He may have said X and meant Y. Like you said but trust me, we've all had our Mom's call us by one of our brother's or sister's names before.
And George W. almost seems to have a speech impediment when it comes to what he wants to say vs. what he can.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:He may have said X and meant Y. Like you said but trust me, we've all had our Mom's call us by one of our brother's or sister's names before.
The refusal to issue any kind of retraction pretty much confirms that when he said "Y" that is what he meant. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I don't presume to tell him what he believes. He can believe whatever he wants.
I am a thinking individual, however, and have no obligation to check that at the door when discussing Pat Robertson. The man has years of public speaking experience. He did not stumble over his words. He didn't say something cryptic that people misinterpreted. He said "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability." And in case someone wants to argue that "take him out" might mean, oh, I don't know, "to dinner" maybe, he continued "if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."
Now, if this is a case of saying X and meaning Y, well then we really can't hold anyone accountable for whatever they say on the airwaves, now can we? This is a case of "misspeaking" like Janet Jackson's recent fiasco was a case of "wardrobe malfunction".
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I don't know if they have speechwriters on the 700 club or not. I don't watch it. If he does leave it as is without a retraction or at least clarification, then that makes him even dumber IMHO. If he claims he never said that, he's wrong.
Either way, anything he says is pretty much "Meh" to me.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
I'm not particularly fond of extremists, whether what they agree with me or not. Usually (but not always) they end up saying something so completely and utterly foolish that they end up hurting the cause they so adamantly support.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Belle said:
quote: Now, keep in mind I'm not a Robertson fan - he actually wouldn't like me very much, I don't think, we disagree on theology as well as other things. But, I will give credit where it is due. He claims he never called for assassination and that he was misinterpreted. Which one would expect him to say, and that's no surprise. But what was a surprise is that he was interviewing someone from a Human Rights organization about Venezuela and that person spoke about how he disagreed with what Pat said, and how he didn't condone assassination and Robertson let him talk, and didn't argue, simply said he appreciated the man stating his views.
So, I give him credit for at least trying to defend the statements and trying to distance himself from actually calling for the killing of another person, and for allowing dissent to be aired on his own tv show without interrupting or trying to silence the dissenter.
Belle,
I'm honestly confused. What kind of credit does he deserve for lying about what he said? His response shows neither a willingness to stand for what he originally said or the willingness to admit he screwed up. Many articles highlighting both is comments about being "misinterpreted" and this from his original remarks:
quote:"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson Monday. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."
Not that I'm a fan of any media these days, and I'm pretty much on the AP "fecal roster" right now, but this sounds like the AP interpreted his comments exactly right. It's scary that there are enough people who take him seriously to keep his show a profitable enterprise.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Here's my idea, if Pat Robertson wants him dead, then let him go do it.
Any seconds?
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
It does seem that despite his illustrious speaking career, Robertson could use a redirect on the meaning of "covert."
Aw, crap, Sarcasm beat me to it.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: Here's my idea, if Pat Robertson wants him dead, then let him go do it.
I suspect that if Robertson set foot in Venezuela, he'd be immediately arrested for "Crimes Against Sanity." Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I caught a bit of the 700 Club while channel surfing this morning. Robertson was speaking around the subject of his previous statement, but he sure didn't appear to be recanting it or even trying to recast it in a different light.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The stuff going on in Venezuela- he's a pretty big reason why gas prices have gone up in my opinion. Oil is Venezuela's biggest export- and they either have or ship out more than they do in the Middle East I know (maybe both)
Your information is wrong. The US imports more oil from Venezuela than from the middle east, but total oil production and reserves in the Middle East are several times greater than Venezuela. As of 2002 (sorry most recent list I could find). Venzuela was the 8th largest producer of oil in the world falling behind Saudi Arabia, Former USSR, USA, Iran, China, Norway, and Mexico.
Although Venezuelan oil exports were down 19% in 2003 do to political upheaval, they are now above the 2002 levels. Despite its conflicts with the US, Venezuela is now selling the US more oil than ever before and it is folly to suggest they are at fault for high gas prices.
The three biggest factors in the currentt high gas prices (in no particular order) are
1. Increased demand for oil in China and India do the economic boom in those countries.
2. Troubles in Iraq. Oil exports from Iraq are currently at about 1/2 their 2002 levels, which is a much bigger drop in global exports than the 2003 drop in Venezuela. Continued fighting keeps the oil prices up.
3. The weak US dollar. The dollar is worth less than 75% of the 2002 value.
[ August 24, 2005, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)